Firm Valuation, Market Responses, And Accounting Conservatism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines whether the components of accounting conservatism as described in Watts (2003a): contracting, litigation, regulation, and taxation, provide insight on the value relevance of financial information. During the years 1993 through 2009, we explore whether these four factors are value relevant in capturing information in contemporaneous stock returns and prices and whether the trends in value relevance for these drivers vary across time. Specifically, our study aids in helping to reconcile the competing results of Balachandran and Mohanram (2011), who state that there is no compelling evidence that firms with higher levels of accounting conservatism exhibit decreasing levels of value relevance, and Lev and Zarowin (1999), who suggest that accounting conservatism is a factor causing a decline in the usefulness of financial information over time. Our results provide evidence that the level of contracting, litigation, and regulation are associated with returns and prices and their value relevance has not decreased over time, findings which differ from Lev and Zarowin (1999), and support Balachandran and Mohanram (2011), such that the expectation of these drivers are associated with value relevance. In addition, we find less consistent evidence that the taxation explanation of accounting conservatism is associated with value relevance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".